Fwiw, I'm still following this thread, but so far Scott G. has been saying
everything I would say (good on ya, brother :P).
>> My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the
shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or
deny this? <<
Confirmed. The encapsulation barriers are there to prevent you from
stumbling into shadow.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bronislav Klučka <
> Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7.3.2013 19:54, Scott González wrote:
>>>
>>> Who is killing anything?
>>>
>> Hi, given
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webapps/**
>> 2013JanMar/0676.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0676.html>
>> I've misunderstood your point as advocating against Shadow altogether.
>>
>
> Ok, good to know that this was mostly just a miscommunication.
>
>
>
>> 2nd is is practical: not having to care about the internals, so I do not
>> break it by accident from outside. If the only way to work with internals
>> is by explicit request for internals and then working with them, but
>> without the ability to breach the barrier accidentally, without the
>> explicit request directly on the shadow host, this concern is satisfied and
>> yes, there will be no clashes except for control naming.
>>
>
> My understanding is that you have to explicitly ask to walk into the
> shadow, so this wouldn't happen accidentally. Can someone please confirm or
> deny this?
>